I am claiming it is most consistent to use "utensils" in verses 7 and 18, rather than "articles". See the answers above.
No. The other two times they may have been valuable and they may have been a bunch of flowers or a hat. We cannot know. But we do know that on her 46th birthday you definitely gave her "valuable things".
No, I think it probably did include valuable things. But that is an assumption. The difference may be that in the first and last instances there was a mix of valuable things and other things whereas in the second instance there were only valuable things (probably gold and silver). All I know for sure is that the writer made a distinction. Without further information that has to be good enough in itself.
I was interested to see your quote from Alan Rogerson's book. The first, and one of the fairest, non-Witness books about the Witnesses that I have read. I believe he is now in Melbourne, Australia. I wonder if he's one of the Wallabies on this board ?
Oh, and finally some interesting points from the most recent volume "scholar" referred to: Word Biblical Commentary, volume 13, by T.R.Hobbs, 1985, pp.348-353 (2 Kings 24):
Comment
The Babylonian Chronicle (see Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, 1956, 43-77, and Grayson,
Texts from Cuneiform Sources - Volume V, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles ,
1975, 99-102) provides an outline of the international events that led up to the Babylonian invasion and the sacking of Jerusalem. To be noted is that from 609 B.C. onward the Babylonian interests under Nabopolassar are decidedly towards the west. In mid-609 B.C. Nabopolassar's army attacked Harran (BM 29101:66-75). In the following year they fought against Beit Hanunya and returned home in the month of Tebet (BM 22047:1-4). Early in 607 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, was engaged against various enemies on the banks of the Euphrates (BM 22407:5-15), and in the latter part of 606 B.C. Nabopolassar fought against Egyptian and Syrian armies in the northwest of his territory.
In 605 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar fought at the head of the Babylonian army at Carchemish (BM 21946:1-10) and returned home to assume the throne on the death of his father. Then followed a series of campaigns into "Hatti" (Palestine), after which he returned home in 605/604 B.C. in the eleventh month. In his first year (604/603 B.C.) he marched into Palestine, and by the ninth month (Kislev) he had sacked Ashkelon. In the second month (Iyyar) of the following year (603/602 B.C.) he again ventured into Palestine, as he did again in the third month (Siwan) of his third year (602/601 B.C.). Late in his fourth year (601/600 B.C.) he marched against the borders of Egypt but was met with a serious setback and consequently spent his fifth year recuperating and refitting his army. In 599/598 B.C., in the ninth month (Kislev), he again moved west and plundered several Arab towns to the east of Palestine. The following year he attacked Palestine, again in the ninth month. The account offers very specific details of his capture of Jerusalem on the second day of Adar (the twelfth month), ie, February 16, 597 B.C.
This sketch of international affairs, to which can be added the activities of Psammetichus II of Egypt, provides the background for the events found in 2 Kgs 24 and 25. Sometime after the defeat of the Egyptian army at Carchemish in 605 B.C., Judah became subject to Babylon. Exactly when is not known. The campaign to Ashkelon in 604/603 B.C. would provide a suitable context for this (see A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah in the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom", VTSup 28, 1974, 129-31, for the possibilities).
1
With this verse compare 2 Chr 36:6-7, which is not a complete parallel. Chronicles adds the note about the confiscation of the temple vessels and their installation in Nebuchadrezzar's temple in Babylon, a statement challenged by Jer 27:18. On the use of "attack" see 3:21; 6:24; 16:5, etc. The expression "in his days" is not helpful in dating the invasion of Nebuchadrezzar. It must have been sufficiently early in the reign of Jehoiakim to allow him three years' servitude. The campaign records in the Babylonian Chronicle are imprecise enough to be of little use. The most likely context is the Babylonian attack on Ashkelon in Kislev of 604/603 B.C. (so Malamat, VTSup 28:131-32, and Albright, "The Seal of Eliakim and the latest Pre-exilic History of Judah", JBL 51 [1932] 90-91). Josephus (Antiq. x. 87) mistakenly places the first invasion of Nebuchadrezzar in his fourth year (i.e., 601/600 B.C.), but the Babylonian Chronicle proves this to be false. Larsson ("When Did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?", JTS 18 [1967] 417-23) seeks to harmonize this material with Chronicles and comes up with a date of 605 B.C. for Jehoiakim's subjugation. But this is unlikely.
..."then he turned in rebellion" is a synonym for "revolt" (see 1:1; 3:5); LXX translates both with ethetesen. The rebellion could well have taken place within the period between Kislev 601/600 B.C. and Kislev 599/598 B.C. The first of these dates corresponds to Nebuchadrezzar's abortive attack on Egypt; the second is the date of his attack on Hatti and the neighboring Arabs. In the year between, no military activity took place. Instead, Nebuchadrezzar stayed at home to refit.
2
...
"raiding bands." These marauders, lightly armed troops best suited for hit-and-run tactics, were taking advantage of the relatively weak position of Judah at this time. The nature of the coalition suggests that Nebuchadrezzar hired mercenaries from the east of the Jordan to act on his behalf, presumably until he was strong enough himself to launch a full-scale attack on Palestine. This attack did not come until Kislev of 598/597 B.C. (see BM 21946: 11-13). The subjugation of the Arabs the year before would have provided the Babylonians with sufficient power east of the Jordan to encourage such mercenary raids on Judah. That these raids netted Nebuchadrezzar some Jewish prisoners (so Malamat, VTSup 28:131) is an attractive possibility. It is unlikely that such raids were just for fun. It might also help solve some of the confusing problems over the final number of prisoners taken into exile. The situation is reflected in Jer 35:11....
5 Compare with 2 Chr 36:5-8 and note the minor additions. No mention is made in Kings of Jehoiakim's death, whereas the account in Chronicles states that the Babylonian king had him bound and dragged off to Babylon. Josephus (Antiq. x.97-98) adopts a similar understanding of events, although in his account Jehoiakim is subsequently executed. Josephus's chronology has recently been revived by Larsson (JTS 18 [1967] 417-23), and [Bustenay] Oded , "Judah and the Exile," in: John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History, 1977 , 471) attempts a synchronization. However, the expression "he slept with his fathers" would suggest burial of some form in Jerusalem, not beyond Judah. This point is made by codex Vaticanus, which adds "in the garden of Uzzah." There is nothing here to throw light on Jeremiah's comment (Jer 22:19; 36:30) on the death of the king. The suggestion that the king was assassinated (so Bright, History of Israel, 1972, 327) is certainly possible, but one would have expected a reference to it in the text....
8 The record of the reign of Jehoiachin begins with the typical formulaic introduction. "eighteen years old." 2 Chr 36:9 reads "eight," but this is unlikely. An eight-year-old boy who reigned for three months is hardly likely to have merited the criticism offered in v 9....
10 The Babylonian army attacked Jerusalem in response to the rebellion. According to the Babylonian Chronicle the attack began in the month of Kislev (Nov.-Dec.) 598/597 B.C. and ended three months later on the second day of Adar (Feb.-Mar. 597 B.C.). On the dating, see E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr der Katastrophe, 587 v. Chr.", Biblica 55 (1974) 520-45. The three-month period corresponds neatly with the length of the reign of Jehoiachin....
12 ...
"in the eighth year of his reign." The date is according to Nebuchadrezzar's reign. The perspective is therefore now that of one who was familiar with the Babylonian method of reckoning, or familiar with the date of Nebuchadrezzar's accession. It corresponds well with the date in the Babylonian Chronicle. To build too much on this in terms of the redaction history of the book (see J. Gray, I and II Kings, Old Testament Library, 753) is a mistake. Jer 52:28, universally regarded as a later edition of the fall of Jerusalem, reads "seventh," which ignores the Babylonian reckoning by not taking into account the accession year of the king. According to the Chronicle, the city fell on the second of Adar (Feb. 16) in the seventh year of the king. The exile of prisoners would have taken some weeks to organize and would therefore have taken place in the early months of the following year, the eighth.
13 Following the fall of the city, the Babylonians help themselves to the spoils of war. As one might expect, the temple and palace treasures are a primary target, as had happened many times before. Not only is the pattern followed, but also the prophecy of 20:16-19 is now being fulfilled....It is argued that Jer 27:19-22 is a contradiction because it refers to vessels still in the temple during the reign of Zedekiah. There is no contradiction here. In neither account, Babylonian or Judean, is it stated that everything was looted. Nebuchadrezzar clearly made provision for the continuation of the economic and political life of Judah after the first deportation, albeit in a much reduced form, by the appointment of Zedekiah as king.
15 ...When compared, the two passages [verse 14 and verses 15 & 16] betray a different interest. V 14 is concerned mainly with the removal of specifically military personnel from the Jerusalem establishment. Vv 15-16 are more widely based. Malamat's suggestion (VTSup 28:133-35) that the addition of 3,023 (Jer 52:28) and 7,000 (v 16) is approximately 10,000 (v 14), and that there were therefore two initial deportations in the seventh and eighth years of Nebuchadrezzar is most tempting. The initial 3,023 referred to the "Jews," i.e., those from outside Jerusalem who were deported before the fall of the city by the army Nebuchadrezzar had left in Palestine when he returned home after the Arab campaign in his sixth year. It is here, however, that the theory falters. That Nebuchadrezzar left such an army behind is unlikely and is not supported by the Babylonian Chronicle.
